“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

Ziggurat said:
No. He says some things about homosexuals that some people find offensive. Not the same thing.
Click to expand...

Well, if we define "homophobic" to be like "racist", wouldn't it be homophobic to say that gay people are bad workers because they're always late for work? Because he said that, and that sounds like saying that black people are lazy. I don't find it offensive, but I do find it racist.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
It being okay to cause physical harm to others, cause destruction to certain classifications of property in certain instances, etc...that's also a belief system.
Click to expand...

It is only ok when expressing your love of sports teams or pumpkins. Then no one cares. I mean imagine if we cancled major sporting events just because of riots! That would never be acceptable.

So as long as it is sports related no one really cares about who's stuff is damaged.

I am still waiting for white leadership to do something about whites perverse and violent love of pumpkins as shown in the pumpkin riots in Keyne. But white leaders are still silent on this.
 
Ziggurat said:
Yeah, no. This simply isn't equivalent. Rescinding your own invitation really isn't the same as using violence to silence someone. The equivalent would have been if the Berkeley student group that invited him had uninvited him, but that's not what happened.
Click to expand...

And of course if they had removed the invitation it would still be decried as censorship on college campuses, after all college campuses are required to give people like Milo a platform to speak on, that is what all these college censorship threads have always said.

CPAC is just not held to the same standards because they are not the liberal elite. They can censor anyone they want for any reason they want and get a free pass at it.

So you will now no longer give people grief for just protesting and pressuring schools to uninvite people like Milo, or is that still horrific violations of free speech?

At least bomb threats to drive away feminists are OK, that still hasn't changed right?
 
Delphic Oracle said:
Declining to allow someone to use a platform for increasing the reach of their message isn't diminishing their Freedom of Speech.

That's not how it works.
Click to expand...

But that has been the claim on the right against liberal colleges censoring proper conservative voices by not inviting them or having them withdraw the invitation. That is the poisonous anti free speech of the left after all. That has been the argument for years.
 
ponderingturtle said:
It is only ok when expressing your love of sports teams or pumpkins. Then no one cares. I mean imagine if we cancled major sporting events just because of riots! That would never be acceptable.
.
Click to expand...

Generally the riots happen after the sporting event. I don't think anyone other than the rioters think they're okay.
 
Mycroft said:
Generally the riots happen after the sporting event. I don't think anyone other than the rioters think they're okay.
Click to expand...

They don't blame the sports fans for them though. I mean imagine if they closed down a college sports franchise over riots, the riots that would create would be legendary!

Sports fans who riot because their guy lost his job over aiding and abetting child rape is OK and totally american. Having a little violence in a protest against a racist, sexist, troll is right out. The sports gives people a cover because right thinking americans like sports, just like right thinking americans like racist sexist trolls.
 
Mycroft said:
Generally the riots happen after the sporting event. I don't think anyone other than the rioters think they're okay.
Click to expand...

Sports rioters don't even get half the vitriol that political ones do nowadays. Hell, sports rioting is practically socially acceptable in comparison.
 
twinstead said:
Sports rioters don't even get half the vitriol that political ones do nowadays. Hell, sports rioting is practically socially acceptable in comparison.
Click to expand...

They get to be minor news for a while and then ignored.

They often even refuse to call a good sports riot a riot and ignore the damage far in excess of what happened a berkeley. When Penn State closes down the football team for a year because of a riot, I will think they start actually caring about them.
 
Ziggurat said:
No, it really doesn't depend on who you ask. Glass windows (which is what we're talking about) all do the same thing: permit the passage of light, block the flow of air. This function fails when the window is broken. Pretending otherwise doesn't demonstrate sophisticated thinking, it merely demonstrates delusion.
Click to expand...

I've already explained this to you: being able to objectively determine that an object has a property is not the same as being able to objectively determine the "purpose" of an object. The Earth is round, therefor the purpose of the Earth is to be round?
 
caveman1917 said:
I've already explained this to you: being able to objectively determine that an object has a property is not the same as being able to objectively determine the "purpose" of an object. The Earth is round, therefor the purpose of the Earth is to be round?
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that the earth was designed and engineered?
 
caveman1917 said:
Of course not, it's trivial to understand.

"You're only rejecting God because you don't understand Him"...
Click to expand...
You think that the convention of private and public ownership us like belief in God?

I own my car. You haven't a right to destroy it in order to protest a speaker who has nothing to do with me.
 
caveman1917 said:
I've already explained this to you: being able to objectively determine that an object has a property is not the same as being able to objectively determine the "purpose" of an object. The Earth is round, therefor the purpose of the Earth is to be round?
Click to expand...
Human created artifacts are not like the earth. Sometimes they have intended functions.
 
phiwum said:
Obviously, you are biased in favor of those who paid for the windows. Those who broke them have a different purpose in mind. Duh.
Click to expand...

Obviously.

I might as well complain about people destroying the property of the protester, when the cleaners broke the piece of art he or she created. It would have no less basis in fact than people's complaints here.
 
phiwum said:
You think that the convention of private and public ownership us like belief in God?
Click to expand...

Obviously.

I own my car.
Click to expand...

God exists.

You haven't a right to destroy it in order to protest a speaker who has nothing to do with me.
Click to expand...

You haven't a right to deny that God exists. Or, since you seem to like dramatic use of language, you haven't a right to destroy my belief that God exists.
 
Last edited:
phiwum said:
Human created artifacts are not like the earth. Sometimes they have intended functions.
Click to expand...

Not everyone has the same intentions with them though, as shown clearly in the case under determination. The intended function is not a property of the object itself, but of the relation between a person and an object. It's not "this object has this intended function" but "this person intends for this object to have this function".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom